News Flash: No Ethanol Questions in Iowa Today!

I begin with a brief apology - I feel I was a bit rough on the blogging community in my previous post. The crack about "would-be novelists" was uncalled for. I am learning that blogging with meanness is easier and more interesting than blogging with fairness and niceness. Good lesson. I'll edit myself more closely, but try to keep in the interesting stuff.

This morning, I enjoyed a political junkie's delight - I watched the Republican presidential candidates debate in Des Moines on ABC's "This Week" program. The delight part was that I was uninterrupted, as Cherie has taken the kids on a little trip for a few days. It's awfully quiet here without them, but the good news is it's awfully quiet around here. I am a portrait of FOCUS in their absence. I am also a portrait in LOUD in the evenings in their absence.

The debate, moderated by George Steph....olos, former wonder boy Press Secretary to Bill Clinton, began with a troubling set of stats. Troubling because they were presented at all. Before the first question was asked, George Steph...olos reviewed the latest poll standing of each candidate in Iowa. Romney leading, McCain on life support, Fred Thompson (not a declared candidate and not a participant in the debate) running at 13%, Tancredo and Tommy Thompson basically invisible. The morning's conversation, apparently, was going to be more about who's up and who's down than who has the best ideas and experience to implement those ideas. I felt that the horse race stats diminished some of the candidates before they even had a chance to open their mouths. That's a shame. It seemed to me that a first time viewer should see everyone on that stage as an equal, and perhaps form their own opinion over time. It got worse later when a commercial break in the proceedings began with the question, "Tell us who's winning the debate" at abcnews.com. More game show gimmicks for a process that shouldn't need a leaderboard posted every few minutes. It stops voters from considering all options, and funnels their interest too narrowly, too early.

For today, let's look at those candidates who said things that made me think, "What is he thinking?"

Tancredo stood by his earlier comment that we should threaten to bomb Islamic holy sites in order to deter future terrorists. Thank goodness Tommy Thompson correctly pointed out to Tancredo that if he bombed Mecca, Al Qaeda would have 1 billion new members the next day. Tancredo is not in my top 50 at this point.

Sam Brownback, the most hard core evangelical candidate for the Republicans this time around, said that if elected, he would put a judge on the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Excuse me, pretty sure that the judicial branch is supposed to be an independent body, not another department in the White House. Is he saying that any nominee for the Court would need to tell him how he/she would rule on that case before being submitted for confirmation? Are there other court cases that this judge would need to rule on for Brownback before hearing the case? I understand Brownback's cause, but sadly for him, he's running for President of the United States, and we have three branches of government. He'll need to work within the system.

Tommy Thompson vowed to cure breast cancer by the year 2015. Now, when political candidates tell me that they can cure a disease, I think we can safely say that they are overreaching, don't you think? (Unless, of course, Bill Frist says it - he can diagnose brain conditions over a TV screen, don't you know.)

Both Guiliani and Romney stated unequivocally that they "support the 2nd Amendment". I guess that begs the question, are there other Amendments that you don't support? And by the way, I believe that many gun control advocates support the 2nd Amendment as well, but they interpret the Amendment differently than the NRA. So, nice pander, but not sure that tells me anything, except that you both desperately want the NRA to like you and vote for you.

When Ron Paul, the Libertarian candidate pretending to be a Republican candidate, voiced his opinion that we need to leave Iraq now, Mitt Romney was on screen muttering, "Has he forgotten about 9-11?" Excuse me, Mitt, but can we once and for all accept the fact that the Iraq War had nothing to do with 9-11, but has over time, through repeated administration statements, become linked to those events? Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we deposed the secular leader of that country and left the doors open for the bad guys. Can we now move on to how to we repair a broken situation?

Mike Huckabee, the other Man from Hope, told us that it is time that we "end our dependence on foreign oil". Governor Moonbeam, Democrat Jerry Brown, was on this issue 30 years ago, and nothing has changed, at least not for the better. Does Huckabee mean we should focus our resources on renewable energy, including nuclear, or does he mean that we should be drilling for oil in every backyard in America, especially if you live in Alaska? Not sure, but that would be an important follow up question.

All in all, I am mostly encouraged by the crop of available candidates on both sides so far. While there is no one that has risen to the top of either Party in my view, at least 90% of the announced candidates are serious contenders with serious, well considered views...now that Gilmore is out.

I hope we meet Ron Paul in New Hampshire. I want to have lunch with THAT guy. Crazy like a fox.

JS